“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label Public Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Law. Show all posts

Polly Chromatic v Westminster: Reissued Ofsted Alert Filed After Judicial Review and Emergency Injunction


⟡ “Safeguarding Was Their Excuse. Retaliation Was Their Method. Silence Was OFSTED’s Role.” ⟡
We Filed in Court. Now We’ve Filed With the Regulator.

Filed: 24 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/OFSTED/ALERT-REISSUE-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-24_SWANK_Letter_Ofsted_ProtectiveSafeguardingAlert_USChildrenRemoved.pdf
Re-submission of formal safeguarding alert to Ofsted concerning the unlawful removal of four U.S. citizen children by Westminster Council during live litigation and in breach of safeguarding law.

I. What Happened

At 01:57 AM on 24 June 2025, Polly Chromatic reissued a formal safeguarding alert to Ofsted’s Safeguarding and Regulation Team. The submission details the retaliatory removal of four disabled American minors on 22 June 2025 by Westminster Children’s Services. The action was taken without a court order, medical coordination, or disability accommodations. A Judicial Review, Emergency Reinstatement Request, and Emergency Injunction are all now live in the High Court. The lead child, Regal (age 16), was removed without documentation or autonomy acknowledgement.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Children were removed in breach of legal and regulatory safeguards

  • Disability access rights were ignored for both parent and children

  • No care plan or medical continuity was presented during removal

  • One child was legally old enough to object, and no such right was honoured

  • The removal followed direct legal action against Westminster — including a £23M civil claim

This wasn’t safeguarding. It was a bureaucratic reprisal masquerading as child protection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because you cannot claim oversight if you refuse to look.
Because Regal was taken while the courts were open and filings were active.
Because safeguarding doesn’t mean “removal by intimidation” — it means protection, which never occurred.
Because the regulator’s job is not to shield institutions from scandal — it’s to act before the archive does.
Because we are not sending notice for your awareness. We are sending it for your citation.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 31 – No lawful removal threshold presented

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 20 – Disability access violations

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8 – No hearing; family life breached

  • UNCRC Articles 9, 12, 24 – No legal process, no child consultation, disrupted medical care

  • Ofsted Regulatory Charter – Duty to investigate serious safeguarding failure

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t a removal. It was an evidentiary hostage situation disguised as child welfare.
This wasn’t confusion. It was tactical removal under the shadow of an audit.
This wasn’t regulatory silence. It’s now regulatory implication.

SWANK does not file to be heard. We file so no one can say they didn’t know.
Ofsted has now been notified — twice.
This post is the jurisdictional proof.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.


No comments:

Polly Chromatic v Westminster & RBKC: Escalation Notification and Ombudsman Referral


⟡ “Unlawful Removal Is Not an Internal Remedy” ⟡
Escalation Is Not Resolution. Judicial Review Is Not Optional.

Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/COURT/JR-ADDENDUM-04
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Addendum_JR_PHSOComplaintAndEscalationNotice.pdf
Formal notice to the Court that all internal remedies have failed and a PHSO complaint is now active.

I. What Happened

On 25 June 2025, Polly Chromatic filed an addendum to her active Judicial Review claim against Westminster City Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The addendum notifies the Administrative Court that a formal complaint has now been submitted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), reference C-2161195. This complaint addresses the same misconduct forming the basis of the Judicial Review: disability discrimination, safeguarding abuse, and the unlawful removal and separation of four disabled U.S. citizen children.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Internal remedies have been exhausted and failed to yield lawful outcomes

  • PHSO complaint confirms active third-party oversight of systemic failure

  • Judicial intervention is now not only appropriate but imperative

  • Over a decade of coordinated misconduct is now under formal investigation

  • The family court granted an Interim Care Order on 24 June 2025 without notifying the Claimant

This is not a service failure. This is structural retaliation masquerading as child protection.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this is no longer a question of domestic protocol.
Because Westminster and RBKC forced a mother to escalate her legal claim after removing her children.
Because escalation through proper channels was punished with removal and silencing.
Because the PHSO complaint, now running parallel to Judicial Review, confirms a public interest threshold has been crossed.
Because ignoring this pattern would be complicity — and SWANK does not do silence.

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989, Section 22C(7): Duty to avoid sibling separation

  • Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8: Right to family and private life

  • Equality Act 2010, Section 15: Discrimination arising from disability

  • Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010

  • Public law procedural fairness duties

  • Administrative law duty to exhaust internal remedies prior to judicial review — already fulfilled

V. SWANK’s Position

This wasn’t child protection. It was jurisdictional sabotage.
This wasn’t a care order. It was a backlash against escalation.
This wasn’t due process. It was a calculated avoidance of it.

SWANK formally notifies the Court — and the public — that the PHSO is now involved.
This post serves as notice. This post is also a warning.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.

This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.

Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.

© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

No comments:

Documented Obsessions